strathspey@strathspey.org:53253

Anselm Lingnau

The RSCDS dance publication process (was: Tunes for "Hornpipes Suitable for Catch the Wind" on the "More Memories.....)

July 30, 2008, 12:35 p.m. (Message 53253)

Katharine Hoskyn wrote:

> I guess this raises the question in a situation like this - who is
> responsible for contacting the deviser - the Branch or Headquarters?  I
> think that in this situation Headquarters could have a reasonable
> expectation that the Branch had cleared the submission with the deviser.

At the end of the day this is probably a question of workflow. In my opinion 
there is a difference between »clearing a submission« (as in, »is it OK for 
us to publish this dance at all?«, which apparently NZ Branch did) and 
sorting out open questions before the publication goes to print (as in »there 
doesn't seem to be a tune suggestion here, what do we use, let's perhaps ask 
the author for some input«, which the music sub-committee ought to have done, 
IMHO).

Also, from my experience in publishing I would consider it a matter of course 
to have an author sign off on a galley proof before the work is actually 
published, just to make sure that everything is all right and no last-minute 
errors have crept in. For example, presumably the dance descriptions in Book 
45 have been »translated« into current standard terminology, and it would 
make sense in my opinion to run that translation by the original deviser to 
see whether everything still aligns with what they had in mind.

And Campbell Tyler replied:

> I could understand it if the RSCDS hierarchy were a paid group
> but they are just people who have volunteered to help keep our favourite
> past time on the road and they no doubt have other priorities and
> pressures. They are also fallible, as Jim was at pains to point out to me
> when I met him in Pitlochry in May.

Right. So where is the problem with saying, »well, we *may* have dropped the 
ball on this one« rather than »what we did was OK because we're free to do 
what we like«?

Anyway, the issue at hand is really not who did or didn't do what when 
concerning Catch The Wind, but how to avoid this type of misunderstanding in 
the future. My suggestion would be to institute a policy of close 
collaboration with dance authors when their dances are prepared for 
publication, such that

  - dance authors are made aware of decisions made on their behalf by
    Membership Services, such as which tune will be published with their
    dances, and their input sought and at least considered;

  - proofs of the relevant bits of a publication are made available to dance
    authors for comment for a set period of time;

  - it should be clarified that, in the case of »calls for dances« to branches
    etc., branches are responsible for making sure that dance authors agree
    that their dances may be published if they are selected (this is
    Katharine's »clearing« above), but that Membership Services is responsible
    for sorting out any open questions that arise during the publication
    process.

Also, the dance submission process should be streamlined to avoid ambiguity. 
For example, there could be a form to be submitted with a dance with an item 
like

      SUGGESTED TUNE (tick and complete as appropriate)

      ( )  __________________________________ (must not occur elsewhere in
                                               RSCDS publications)
      ( )  No preference; please pick one that is nice for this dance

This would relieve Membership Services from having to decide whether the 
absence of a music suggestion is because the author is tone-deaf, because the 
author doesn't care, or because the author's preference has, for some reason, 
become lost in space or time. The form would also ask for a telephone number 
and an e-mail address by which the author could be contacted (even authors 
who do not have their own e-mail are sure to know at least one person who 
could volunteer to act as a proxy).

When planning the time frame for a publication, Membership Services would have 
to take a »comment period« into account. Given e-mail, a week or two should 
be ample, and the schedule could be communicated to dance authors in advance 
so they could arrange for somebody to be available in their place in case 
they are on their big eight-week safari during that time.

Is this unrealistic? It might add a certain amount of paperwork but would, I 
think, send the signal that submitting a dance to the Society is not like 
throwing it into a worm-hole from which it may or may not re-emerge, in the 
shape of a sperm whale and a flower pot, in a completely different quadrant 
of the galaxy. Campbell is correct in pointing out that the folks in 
Membership Services are »just people who have volunteered to help keep our 
favourite past time on the road«, but the same surely applies to the people 
who make up new dances (among others). They're not getting paid, either, and 
so their time and effort should be accorded the same level of respect. The 
National Library of Modern Art isn't entitled to hang its Jackson Pollock 
paintings upside down as a matter of convenience because its curators are too 
overworked to figure out the right way up; anything of the sort would be 
regarded as a mistake.

At the end of the day this is a simple application of the Golden Rule -- if 
Membership Services want their work to be valued and respected by the SCD 
community at large, the first step to achieving this is to treat the SCD 
community at large with respect, and that includes dance authors. Consider 
this a small part of »a strategy to expand the existing global membership, 
develop member services and evolve the brand« :^)

Sorry for droning on about this for so long. But I guess if the Society 
big-wigs are willing to pay some random MBA £35K a year to figure these 
things out for them, they should be happy to get the stuff from me, for free. 
There's more where this came from :^)

Anselm
-- 
Anselm Lingnau, Friedberg, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
The reward of a thing well done is to have done it.     -- Ralph Waldo Emerson